When is Mobile Photography no longer Mobile Photography?

RHKing

RHKing

MobiAddict
Real Name
Robert H King
Device
iPhone X
Hi everyone.
When I post, put out into the world, a photo from my iPhone, it is just that: a photo from my iPhone transferred to my iPad (I have failing eyesight so need the big screen). It is usually enhanced/adjusted/tweaked with a few Apps then posted to a few chosen forums. Likewise with my montage work, everything originates on the iPhone or iPad and each element is built up in layers until I reach a point of being happy with the work. There is no clip art or stock photography involved, no DSLR or compact camera images imported, it's all IOS originated. The same workflow would apply to other mobile platforms.

Over the past few weeks I have noticed a growing number of artists using work originated on DSLR's but worked on in mobile Apps on iPads / iPhones and Android devices. Several artists winning 'mobile photography' awards and nominations.

My question is this: Where is the line drawn? Should DSLR images be allowed in mobile photography competitions? Should it just be 'mobile only'? Should there even be a distinction anymore? Should it all just generically be referred to as 'Photography'?

I suppose I'm a bit of a purist in that I personally think if an image wins a 'mobile......' Award then it should be just that, Mobile only...

Let's here your thoughts.
Robert.
 
Interesting thought, Robert, and one I suspect there'll be a lot of opinions on.

To my mind the whole 'mobile photography' tag is a misnomer. As long as mankind has been able to lug a camera out into the field photography has been 'mobile'. Like many terms these days it has been misappropriated by the digerati to describe a process that has been considerably changed by the use of computers and software.

I don't believe DSLR images should be allowed in in any competition where work is meant to be originated on a mobile phone device using only the built-in lens provided and processed with apps available for that platform. It is, after all, a test of an individual's skill using the tools available and accepting the limitations endemic to them.

A DSLR is merely an evolution of a form of camera that has been around for many, many years with the only change being the replacement of film with a digital CCD. The camera is still able to use interchangeable lenses and provide a quality of image still not possible with most mobile phone devices. It gives the DSLR photographer an unfair advantage over their fixed lens wielding rivals.

Will things ever change? Of course they will. The distinction between DSLRs and mobile phones is being eroded all the time but for now lets's celebrate what can be done with a device unimaginable to photographers less than 20 years ago, Vive la difference!
 
I do also think that "mobile photography" is particularly inappropriate when exclusively applied to mobile phones and tablets ... while desktop computers can be obviously excluded ... why would DSLR's and laptops be excluded ?!? ...

In most cases involving "pure" supposed to be mobile photography, people are reluctant to use the word "smartphone" ... doesn't sound artistic enough I guess :) ... so they use the shortcut "mobile" and they feel better.

iPhoneography is okay isn't it ? [emoji56] ... but seriously, mobile ... no. A 4x5" camera was also mobile.
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting question and one I ponder quite often, since I actually became attracted to photography as a result of working in retouching. I'm really curious to hear what others think!

My phone is the only camera I own, so ALL my photos originate on a mobile device. But what then? While I love mobile apps for certain effects, I still prefer editing with Photoshop. (My eyes are also not what they used to be!)

Sure, I can do a lot of what I do in PS on my phone, but it takes multiple apps and extra time to manage what are often cruder versions of tools found in desktop suites. I'm just more precise/faster/better on my laptop (which, as someone pointed out is also, technically, mobile).

So is my mobiley-originated photo no longer mobile once desktop software is applied? (And what does "desktop" mean anymore, anyway, when you can now run full desktop editing suites on hybrid tablets like Surface and Cintique? Note to Santa Claus...)

I totally respect whatever parameters a site or contest requires for inclusion - their house, their rules, as it were - and hate to see people crossing the lines. But as an overall art form it is getting harder to see those lines! (It's similar to the debate about whether a photo ceases to be a photo once it's been manipulated - don't get me started!)

Interestingly, it would appear that for many stock sites, no matter how one post-processes a mobile photo, it will ALWAYS be considered a mobile photo and religated to the kiddie table, away from the grown ups with their "real" cameras. ;)
 
Having been on both sides of the equator ( DSLR v. Mobile) I don't think I'll ever go back to DSLR ( as evident by the dust bunnies, kitties and puppies collection on my old equipment). The challenge, joy, and craft for me lies in what I can do with that one lens on my iphone. As for contests, I always write and ask the question...so I know what I'm up against: pure mobile or DSLR manipulated on mobile then I decide. I use my desktop to store and to see finished work with a larger view but that's it...so for me, mobile photgraphy is iphoneography
 
Interesting conversation!

By choice, my personal preference is a camera that happens to come with a phone. In my mind there is no distinction between equipment. (It really is all mobile when you get right down to it.) I enter contests/exhibitions; both mobile only and others with no rules/requirements as to cameras used. I do well in some of both and in others; not so much. I don't attribute that to the equipment used but rather the level of experience of my fellow participants and the subjectivity of the judge. In the 4-5 years I've been passionate about photography I've seen more and more acceptance of what we all think of as "mobile" photography and I think that's a good thing!
 
lisamjw said:
Interesting conversation!

By choice, my personal preference is a camera that happens to come with a phone. In my mind there is no distinction between equipment. (It really is all mobile when you get right down to it.) I enter contests/exhibitions; both mobile only and others with no rules/requirements as to cameras used. I do well in some of both and in others; not so much. I don't attribute that to the equipment used but rather the level of experience of my fellow participants and the subjectivity of the judge. In the 4-5 years I've been passionate about photography I've seen more and more acceptance of what we all think of as "mobile" photography and I think that's a good thing!
Click to expand...
Hear, hear. :thumbs:
 
FotoLumos said:
Interestingly, it would appear that for many stock sites, no matter how one post-processes a mobile photo, it will ALWAYS be considered a mobile photo and religated to the kiddie table, away from the grown ups with their "real" cameras. ;)
Click to expand...
Sadly true, Tara. However, there was a time when 35mm was considered a 'toy' format and no agencies would touch it. So there's hope for us yet. ;)
 
EyeEm, which I normally have some heavy criticism about, does at least one thing right: it's about the picture, not the device you shot it with or if you're an appaholic or just another Photoshop jockey. I've had pics selected for their own market and a few of them for "EyeEm Collection at Getty Images" as well (but in over a year, not a gdmn pic sold)

And they were shot with 2 digital compacts and a bunch of various cell phones, including the now ancient Sony Ericsson K750i.

I, too, hate it when DSLR people enter "cell phone photo contests" or when DSLR wielding, Photoshop addicted snobs frown upon "Mobiography" considering it good for newbies and kids only. Some people need to learn that cell phone cameras are NOT as rotten as they were, like, 2003-2008.

:rog:
 
Very interesting question. The term "mobile photography" is not officially defined. So it means all and nothing at the same time. Every camera is mobile. Is any photo taken with them mobile photography then?

Any mobile photography contest, website or blog should clearly state what they think mobile photography is about.

For me it means photography with a cellphone. .... ah, and tablets that may have no cellphone .... and none of those big bluetooth lenses ... ok, photography with a cellphone and with the lens of that same cellphone into the memory of that same cellphone .... you name it.

PS: the term "mobile photography" can have various meanings in different languages or countries.
 
Last edited:
PicsbyJCG said:
I, too, hate it when DSLR people enter "cell phone photo contests" or when DSLR wielding, Photoshop addicted snobs frown upon "Mobiography" considering it good for newbies and kids only. Some people need to learn that cell phone cameras are NOT as rotten as they were, like, 2003-2008.
Click to expand...

<< Admitted Photoshop Addict / Anti-Snoberry Advocate ;)

I read an article recently, aimed primarily at DSLR photographers, the gist of which was, "Make the most of the equipment you have today. Better gear doesn't automatically make you a better photographer."

The author made the point that the cameras in the phones we carry in our pockets are, technically, more advanced than the camera Ansel Adams used to photograph Yosemite. I find that thought both heartening and challenging.
 
Mik said:
For me it means photography with a cellphone. .... ah, and tablets that may have no cellphone .... and none of those big bluetooth lenses ... ok, photography with a cellphone and with the lens of that same cellphone into the memory of that same cellphone .... you name it.

PS: the term "mobile photography" can have various meanings in different languages or countries.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, Michael. In the UK it means more because we refer to smartphones as mobile phones. In Germany, I believe, they are known as handy phones and in the USA it's cell phones. Any other members care to tell us what smartphones are called in their part of the world?
 
FotoLumos said:
<< Admitted Photoshop Addict / Anti-Snoberry Advocate ;)

I read an article recently, aimed primarily at DSLR photographers, the gist of which was, "Make the most of the equipment you have today. Better gear doesn't automatically make you a better photographer."

The author made the point that the cameras in the phones we carry in our pockets are, technically, more advanced than the camera Ansel Adams used to photograph Yosemite. I find that thought both heartening and challenging.
Click to expand...
That article sounds very interesting, Tara. Any chance you've got a link to it?

Good point about phone cameras being more advanced than Ansel Adams' camera. The difference, however, is that Adams was a master of light and shade, instinctively knowing how to get the best out of his subject, a skill he also used in the darkroom. Try building that into the next iPhone, Apple. ;)
 
richardcb said:
Absolutely correct, Michael. In the UK it means more because we refer to smartphones as mobile phones. In Germany, I believe, they are known as handy phones and in the USA it's cell phones. Any other members care to tell us what smartphones are called in their part of the world?
Click to expand...
In Germany we use the word "handy". A smartphone, cellphone or mobile phone is a "handy". The germans tend to create their own english words with their own meanings. It's good when it's short and sounds english. English is cool. In advertising, if you have nothing really to say, say it in english. This is ignorant against a foreign language and dumb.

In Germany it has to be called a "handy photography" contest (in german: "Handy Foto Wettbewerb") This way people would understand that only cellphones or mobile phones are allowed to make the photos. "mobile photography" means nothing special to the Germans. However, the word "smartphone" is used in a similar meaning as "handy". Both words are ok for us Germans. :)
 
"mobile photography" doesn't really have a future on its own. It's something we are using and we are pushing to make other people understand that "mobile photography" IS "photography". So, as more people will understand that and we are almost there, mobile devices will become legitimate to be considered as tools for professional photography as well. It's just a matter of time, mentality and technology.

However, "iPhoneography" could define something more specific. The same term "mobile photography" has been pushed by us, the "iPhoneographers", since almost the beginning because we wanted to be politically correct and again making other people understanding that taking pictures with an iPhone IS photography. Then the technology kicked in for other mobile devices as well BUT the only "mobile community" worldwide IS the iPhone community. There are NO blogs dedicated to photography for Android, Windows Phone and others BUT a lot dedicated to iPhone photography and I suppose that the ones that are dedicated to Mobile photography have the majority of users coming from iPhone iPad.

This is because, iPhoneography defines something different, which is the connection between photography and painting, through APPS. Of course, including classic photography and everything but the real excitement that connected the iPhoneography community was the ALL world that APPS could open to photography and to ART, and the MIX by the two.

So, as "mobile photography" is just photography and will be photography. And not only that, "mobile devices" will and are redefining photography that will end up having "reflex" photography relegated to a minority in the next years. iPhoneography could still have a different meaning and carry on a specific scenario in the mix of PHOTOGRAPHY/ART world.
 
richardcb said:
That article sounds very interesting, Tara. Any chance you've got a link to it?

Good point about phone cameras being more advanced than Ansel Adams' camera. The difference, however, is that Adams was a master of light and shade, instinctively knowing how to get the best out of his subject, a skill he also used in the darkroom. Try building that into the next iPhone, Apple. ;)
Click to expand...

Argh! I can't find it again - sorry! I want to say it was on the 500px ISO blog, but that might not be so.

What I took from it is just as you say - it really comes down to the skill, artistry and creativity of the photographer over the equipment. Theoretically, our phones are plenty good enough for (or, at the very least, don't have to be a hindrance to) creating great photography.

Obviously, few of us will reach the mastery of an Adams, but the notion inspires me to get better with the gear I have now!
 
FotoLumos said:
Theoretically, our phones are plenty good enough for (or, at the very least, don't have to be a hindrance to) creating great photography.

Obviously, few of us will reach the mastery of an Adams, but the notion inspires me to get better with the gear I have now!
Click to expand...
Well said. To have Adams inspire you to greater photographic skills is no bad thing at all. :thumbs:
 
After reading through this thread I may be allowed to repeat what I've said somewhere else (scroll down to end for the short form) [emoji51]: To me it means having a device or camera I can put into the pocket of my trousers. And to me, adoring all those wonderful pictures taken with a proper DSLR with objectives that alone won't fit into those pockets, it's the only way to take pictures. :) On one hand it's because I am too impatient to fiddle around with focus, white balance and stuff, on the other hand because I love to tickle out the best of bad pictures with Photoshop when I'm at the office. BUT: since I started with my first iPhone and found better apps than the original camera, but laughed out loud about the resolution, I was astounded when I used the camera of the 4S so many years later. I forgot to bring my camera when attending an exhibition - the mobile was the only thing I had at hand. I didn't expect much as the pictures of the 3G before weren't very good because mostly because of the missing sharpness ... But the 4s was the only thing around and better than nothing. After having some pics printed, I didn't believe my eyes, those photos looked sooooo good! Perfect postcards and in that size sharp enough to really enjoy it. From that day I was hooked and did more and more photos with that phone, started app hoarding (approx. 90% photo apps) and still try to find even better apps for the phone. [emoji1] With the 5s it is even better and I'm looking forward to the 6s coming up for me. And I'm really addicted to take pictures with my phone and iPod. The iPad is not mobile enough to me (but painting, drawing and editing is magically on it!) But my pocket camera is. And meanwhile I much prefer to work with different apps before the Photoshop on my desktop. There is so much more iPad, iPhone or iPod can do what PS can't or only with complicated detours. But I still need my pocket camera, because it can do what the the phone can't: zooming. I've learned quickly that this is the only weak spot of my iPhone. Even with Hydra or Taru (or other similar apps) you don't have a chance on sharp images if you don't have a stable hand or a tripod. But my pocket cam can master it (mostly [emoji16]). And if you cut a phone image to the thing you originally would have loved to zoom on, there is not much pixels or sharpness left.
And I repeat the question: Is a laptop you take the picture with a mobile device? (Read that question higher above but couldn't find the answer. Would be not handy for me, but maybe if you're desperate …?)
So in short: I vote for doesn't-matter-what-camera-you-take-the-image-with-as-long-as-you-can-carry-it-without-help-and-just-edit-it-on-your-mobile-device-from-phone-to-tablet. (The results are better than on your desktop anyway – apart from resolution). Let's have a poll asking all Mobitoggers what they'd like: limitations regarding the camera AND editing or just for editing ("must be edited on mobile devices"). [emoji4][emoji106]
And there still could be "cell phone only" contests and threads on here. [emoji106][emoji51]
 
FotoLumos said:
Interestingly, it would appear that for many stock sites, no matter how one post-processes a mobile photo, it will ALWAYS be considered a mobile photo and religated to the kiddie table, away from the grown ups with their "real" cameras. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, the 'kiddie table' that seats the likes of Damon Winter, Ben Lowy et al with their Pulitzers and whathaveyou . . . o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom